The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-04-28
Supreme Court.


Hon. Byron K. Elliott. Chief Justice
The following opinions were rendered April q;
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1866 William Wallace. receiver. VS.. Harry
j. Milligan, assignee. Marion S. @. Affirmed.
Zollers. J.-Appelant was appointed receiver of
the firm of Fletcher & Sharpe, and he took pos
session of all their property, etc., under the or
ders of the Superior Court. S. A. Fletcher a
member of the firm of Fletcher 81 Sharpe, was
not indebted to the firm. Shortly after the APP
pellant was appointed receiver, upon the COM
plant of S. A Fletcher the latter made vol
untary assignment to appellee. who took charge
of the estate under orders of the Circuit Court.
In February last the partnership creditors filed
In the Superior Court an intervening petition
that the partnership assets would not be sufh-
cienu to satisfy the debts; that appellee had pro-
ceeded with Fletchers estate until he had real
lied enough to satisfy individual creditors of
Fletcher; that large sum of money would
be left in appellees hands: that it would
be great expense to make new proof
OF their claims with appellee, and praying
that appellant be appointed receiver for the
creditors OF tins surplus. An order was so
granted Appellant filed a petition in the Cir
cult Court TO the effect that he should receive
and disburse the funds under the orders of the
Superior Court. Appellee's demurrer was sus-
tanned to this petition Appellant was not in
any legal sense appointed receiver of the three
petitioning creditors, nor did the order make
him receiver of S. A Fletcher. The undivided
property of Fletcher cannot be seized for part
nerSllD Q0Dt9. 1T Is reached OrQlnarlfy Oy
judgment and execution against the partners,
enforcing his individual liability. Fetcher's in
dividual property has been assigned, and Is in
the custody Of the Circuit Court 1t cannot be
reached by judgment and execution The stat
ute provides for filing. contestng, ETC., claims;
but because the mode Of establishing the habil-
tiles or the individual partners is different. by
reason of the assignment, the right to enforce
the liability is not thereby changed from the
creditors to the receiver Of the firm. The receiv-
or had no right to collect from S. A. or his es
tate The Superior Court could not make an
order binding and conclusive against the as
signee and the Circuit Court upon a petition by
any creditors.
HUSBAND AND wIFE-CoNTRACTS.
1881. Catharne Dice VS.. Alfonso Irwin.
Fountain G. c. Reversed. Howk, J.-When
husband is indebted to his wife for money
loaned by her to him chattel mortgage exc
cuted by him to the wife is not fraudulent, be-
cause at the time of its execution the claim had
arisen between twenty and twenty five years be-
FORE Neither the statute of limitations
presumption of payment applies to such a case.
Observation-Disclosures
1914 Conrad Shelhouse ct al VS.. The State.
Marion G. c. Reversed. Mitchell J.-Indict-
ment for obstructing alley. The evidence
fails to show that any tain defined way was
used by the public over what Is now claimed as
public alley and it appears that across part
| thereof gates, from 1871 to 1875 were main
tanned. There was no title by prescription. The
| evidence does not show any alley by dedication
| There must have been an actual intention by
| the owners to dedicate. and an acceptance.
/ These evidentiary facts such permitting the
| public TO pass over land with the owners per-
| mission while he uses the land for his own nur
| poses, until he chooses to devote it to other
| uses, do not constitute dedication.
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
| 1851. City of Warsaw VS.. William Dunlap
| Kosciusko c. c. Reversed. Elliott, G. J,-Suit
| for injuries The evidence shows that the acct
/ dent occurred the 10Th of November. 1883,
after dark, and that plank was across the side
| walk from the walls of building being erected.
| 1t appears that work the building was discon-
tinued on the 18th day of November and resumed
| on the 10Th. 1t is asserted in the evidence by
| all the witnesses who testify that the plank was
there; that it was removed each evening on quit
ting work. The time which elapsed between the
accident and the placing of the obstruction
| across the sidewalk was not sufficient to author
| ze the jury to imply notice on the part of the
city. and no recovery can be had
| 1857. Stoughton A. Fletchere ct al vs. Robert
| C. McGill Marion S. G. Rehearing denied.
| lab Jesse j. Brown ct al. VS.. Mary A.
| Critchell ct al Floyd c. C. Rehearing denied.
1852. G. r. & 1. Railroad Company VS..
| Frederick Stoher Alien S. G. Dismissed
1890 G. r. 81 l. Railroad Company VS.. VIM.
| a. B urger. ALLEN S. c. Dismissed.
13707. Cornelius M. Horner VS.. Thomas Cor
rigau. White c. G. Dismissed.